Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@Razerous: I think you've presented a good point in your post. I just don't think you needed the large/colored text to get it across.

Razerous wrote:Powers 1 and powers 1 dont somhow form a new term Powers X. Just doesnt work in the slightest.

The most stright-forward way is usually the best way to go by things. All I can say is that its more complicated if you start including new terms compared to simply applying the ruling to each power as this also addresses what happens when you take Njal. He has every power so another priest may not be taken.

it's not a new term, it's just an alternate interpretation, which is that the plural of powers refers to the two powers a priest has access to and they both have to match with both powers of another priest to satisfy the rules.

I don't personally support this reading, but to argue the issue as though this isn't a valid interpretation is just silly, you aren't proving anything.

If I choose to ignore all the evidence that the earth is round I can easily prove that it's flat.

It was't coloured but thats a good point, may have to remember the blue next time.

I think, if a reader isnt interested in reading the meaty bits of my post, they will still notice/read the two main points. The only reason I enlarged them was for clarity.

Razerous wrote:It was't coloured but thats a good point, may have to remember the blue next time.

I think, if a reader isnt interested in reading the meaty bits of my post, they will still notice/read the two main points. The only reason I enlarged them was for clarity.

I can't speak for others, but I tend to intentionally ignore all caps or enlarged text in a forum post. Pretty much exactly the opposite of what you were going for I think. This is on the basis that, just as a general rule, if someone has to shout it, it probably isn't worth reading in the first place.

Sorry..

Razerous wrote:Sorry..

I AGREE!!!11!!1!!oneoneoneoneone!

Sorry, couldn't resit.

I still think that Powers, unsurprisingly, means Powers, nor Power.

I don't have my codex in front of me at the moment, but each Runepriest must have 2 powers, unless I'm completely off base.

The plural in the wording could be a result of that, which would further indicate that if Runepriest A has powers X & Y, Runepriest B must take 2 powers, neither of which can be X or Y.

I'm sorry. It's pretty clear to me what the intent was, and I think someone took it and ran with it a few weeks ago because they wanted it to mean something else, and now an albeit somewhat unclearly written rule has been turned into a monster.

Beamo wrote:It's pretty clear to me what the intent was

If it was clear, we wouldn't be arguing, Mr. Phil Kelly (I assume you ARE Phil Kelly as you state you know the intent).

imho, the way I read this entry (as we are applyng it to rune priests) is that no two RP's may select the same powers. (ill go out on a limb and assume GW was figuring most RP's would be taking 2 powers from the get-go)

Now, I do see where most of the argument is whether it restricts 2 RP's from having the same singular power, or restricting them from the same combination of 2 powers. I believe it refers to individual powers.

For example, 2 RP's with 2 Powers a piece could not both take JotWW regardless of whatever other power they teamed up with it.

That being said, you can still duplicate powers bytaking Njal and a second Rune Priest. As Special Characters are allowed to duplicate saga's, I didn't see anything wrong with them duplicating psychic powers.

Just my .02, hope I'm reading half of what you all are saying half right.

Gwar! wrote:

Beamo wrote:It's pretty clear to me what the intent was

If it was clear, we wouldn't be arguing, Mr. Phil Kelly (I assume you ARE Phil Kelly as you state you know the intent).

He said specifically it was clear to him.

He is allowed to have an opinion, and he clearly phrased what he wrote to state it as his opinion rather than a statement of fact everyone else should see. No need to attack him over it.

Where was the attack? I was just pointing out to Phil that the statement is unclear, regardless of what he thinks. If it were actually clear, there would be no discussion about it.

Honestly, I cannot see where this "attack" is...

Yeah... my name's not even Phil.

I see where hostility can be viewed in your post, but I'm not worried about it. People of differing opinions can end up pretty heated over things, even little plastic men.

Seriously though, lets step back from JOTWW for a sec and go to the Lightning spell... the d6 AC shots one. Say you take a chooser for each RP, and Lightning and another blah spell for each, and take 4 RPs. You're telling me 4d6 2+ to hit, unlimited range Autocannon shots per turn isn't abusive? Really?

No, if it were clear to everyone, there would be no discussion about it. Obviously it is clear one way to some, clear another way to others, and yet others see how it could be either way.

Getting silly and calling him Phil since hey, only Phil can know the intent, is poking at the guy like he made some declarative statement. He didn't, he gave his opinion, and noted it as such. His opinion has as much weight as yours does. I doubt you would like it if someone got all snarky and sarcastic with you every time you posted your opinion.

He put in the requisite statement denoting it was his opinion. No need to give the guy grief over it is all I'm saying.

I'm on the side of not duplicating the combination of powers, not I divigual powers. Otherwise if you took Njal you could not have any ther Rune Priests as the rules sa special characters don't count for Saga duplication, not anything else.

With the way that it's phrased, I hang my hat on the side that 2 Rune Priests can share 1 power, provided that the second is different. Keep in mind that they have to have different equipment as well. If you read how the restriction is worded, it's in a clause with equipment; separated by ',nor' from sagas. To interpret otherwise would seem to indicate that the intent was to have Njal be the only Rune Priest in an army. (Which may be the case...Phil Kelly, can you tell us your intent?)

I've made an attempt at creating a list with 4 Rune Priests at 1500 pts, and I can't say that I would be happy to field it. Too many eggs are in the cheesy gimmick basket. I picked 1 maxed out unit of Grey Hunters for the free melta (going with the cheesiest list I can make, why stop with the Rune Priests?) in a Rhino. 9 Blood Claws in a drop pod with a melta with a Rune Priest pack leader. 10 Wolf Guard Terminators in various equipages to parcel between 2 of the Rune Priests for some wound allocation. Finally a Predator Annihilator.

5 units on the board. I'm not seeing this as a viable tactic. Then again, feel fear. These are the movie marines we have heard so much of. Heck, they only need one Rune Priest, an empty ration tube and chunk of plas-steel, and they can take out an entire traitor legion and deliver great one-liners as he goes.

I've been having issues with the "No Rune Priest if Njal is in your army" issue myself b/c of duplicate powers argument.
I will be asking my FLGS how they want to rule this in their campaigns, but for now... I'm voting for the XY != XZ group.

I can understand the issue people might have due to the possible 4HQ slots though, which makes me wonder why they added that rule in at all, even after eluding that space wolves are so individual and headstrong that multiple HQs in a list is uncommon. So why add the ability to do this to begin with?

ZeroWolf wrote:imho, the way I read this entry (as we are applyng it to rune priests) is that no two RP's may select the same powers. (ill go out on a limb and assume GW was figuring most RP's would be taking 2 powers from the get-go)

RPs start with 2 powers for free, so I would agree with you. Unless GW thought that people would only select one for some reason.

That being said, you can still duplicate powers bytaking Njal and a second Rune Priest. As Special Characters are allowed to duplicate saga's, I didn't see anything wrong with them duplicating psychic powers.

But, no where in the rules, does it say that SCs are exempt from duplicating powers or wargear - just sagas.

dietrich wrote:

ZeroWolf wrote:imho, the way I read this entry (as we are applyng it to rune priests) is that no two RP's may select the same powers. (ill go out on a limb and assume GW was figuring most RP's would be taking 2 powers from the get-go)

RPs start with 2 powers for free, so I would agree with you. Unless GW thought that people would only select one for some reason.

That being said, you can still duplicate powers bytaking Njal and a second Rune Priest. As Special Characters are allowed to duplicate saga's, I didn't see anything wrong with them duplicating psychic powers.

But, no where in the rules, does it say that SCs are exempt from duplicating powers or wargear - just sagas.

You are correct, no where in the rules does it say that, However, and I know im really going out on a limb, but I would almost say it's implied. I mean, if SC's can duplicate saga's, then its not that far of a stretch in saying they can duplicate psychic powers. I mean, afterall, in a fluffy way, its like the master-apprentice way of thinking.

I could be totally off base, but I would rather have a SC being able to duplicate a power than just having a generic HQ duplicating powers. However, IIRC, regular space marine Librarians can all take the same power, so i'm not sure why the double standard.

My stance on the issue is outlined in this article.

-GK

GiantKiller wrote:My stance on the issue is outlined in this article.

-GK

Your article is as always well written, but fails to provide any real reason someone SHOULD interpret the choice to use the plural "powers" as meaning the whole collective set of powers must match. As with most arguments regarding the matter, it fails to disprove the opposite opinion (that two priests with power A can be said to share the same powers due to A alone) which really only suggests, to me atleast, that both are valid interpretations.

In many situations it's not necessary to demonstrate why one rules argument is invalid, because proving something else to be correct is sufficient, but there are times when both cases can fit within the RAW and this is one, it hinges entirely on two equally valid interpretations of the term "powers".

Gentlemen, another issue.

The list entries for Wolf Lords and WGBLs has no option, after taking TDA, to take a frostblade whilst the wolf guard do.

Now there is an option to take them pre TDA and so my question to you is this:
Can I grab a FB from the entry pre TDA at the stated cost? Then i shan't have ccw/bolt pistol and so it shan't(?) be traded for a pw/storm bolter...?
Just seems silly that a Wolf Lord wouldn't be allowed to take a Frostblade in TDA (oversight?)

As for the priest cadenza, I have to side with the combo faction, just makes more sense to me.

If you dont have the equipment to trade, you cannot make the trade.

You cannot take Frostblads on TDA WGBL.

Drunkspleen wrote:

GiantKiller wrote:My stance on the issue is outlined in this article.

-GK

Your article is as always well written, but fails to provide any real reason someone SHOULD interpret the choice to use the plural "powers" as meaning the whole collective set of powers must match. As with most arguments regarding the matter, it fails to disprove the opposite opinion (that two priests with power A can be said to share the same powers due to A alone) which really only suggests, to me atleast, that both are valid interpretations.

In many situations it's not necessary to demonstrate why one rules argument is invalid, because proving something else to be correct is sufficient, but there are times when both cases can fit within the RAW and this is one, it hinges entirely on two equally valid interpretations of the term "powers".

There is a simple gramatical explanation here:

"no two characters may bear the same saga,..." Saga, singular, yet it is refering to the sagas on 2 characters

"no two characters may bear the same... wargear combination." Combination, singular, yet it is refering to the combinations of wargear on 2 characters

"no two characters may bear the same... psychic powers..." Powers, plural, refering to multiple powers on each priest.

nosferatu1001 wrote: You cannot take Frostblads on TDA WGBL.

And yet a normal Wolf Guard can? That makes little sense.
So can a Wolf Lord?

Siad this before: it is likely a balance thing.

Given that vanilla marines cant get Relic blades while in TDA I would say it is not a typo